Adverting to the subsequent developments, namely, her
friends was correct.
grievance relating to the fact that the leave sanctioning authority had
not sanctioned her leave, the petitioner’s contention that by virtue of
regulation 10(3) of the Leave Regulations, she had not received any
confirmation or refusal of leave pursuant to her application made and it
was presumed that the leave was sanctioned, does not find support in
the regulations.
The relevant portion of regulation 10 are reproduced
above. Our attention is not invited to any specific provision which can
lead an employee to believe that the leave applied for is deemed to be
granted if no communication is received either sanctioning or declining
the leave request. If indeed such a provision was in existence by way
of this regulation or office memorandum clarifications, it could have
been possible to hold in favour of the petitioner on this aspect.
However, once again, the petitioner proceeded on the misconceived
notion that leave is deemed to have been granted. The Petitioner’s
contention is not well founded.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2518 OF 2013
Mrs. S. Mangala
V/s.
Airports Authority of India,
CORAM : V.M. KANADE AND
A.K. MENON, JJ.
DATED : 26TH AUGUST, 2014
Citation; 2015(1) ALLMR779
Rule. Rule returnable forthwith.
2. By the present petition, the petitioner seeks a writ of
1.
mandamus directing the respondents to implement forthwith the
paragraphs (b) & (c) of the Office Memorandum dated 11th September,
2008 (“DoPT OM”) issued by the Department of Personnel & Training
of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions,
with retrospective effect from 1 st
Government of India (DoPT)
September, 2008 and also the subsequent
DoPT OM's
issued
regarding clarifications / amendments and also for direction to quash
and set aside the office memorandum dated 15th July, 2014 and the
subsequent intra office memo dated 15th March, 2011 whereby the
petitioner is directed to submit her reply / explanation as to why she
proceeded on leave without prior sanction.
3.
The facts leading to the present petition are as follows: The
petitioner is employed as the Deputy General Manager (Aviation
Safety), Western Region of respondent No.1, the Airports Authority of
India. Respondent No.1 (AAI) is a public sector undertaking in the
Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India, which is responsible for
the administration and management of all the airports in the country.
Respondent Nos.2 to 6 are the executives of respondent No.1. The
Government of India issued a notification dated 23rd May, 2003 titled
Airports Authority of India (General Conditions of Service and
Remuneration of Employees) Regulations, 2003 (AAI Regulations).
The AAI issued a notification dated 13th June, 2003 titled as AAI Leave
Regulations, 2003 which laid down rules and procedures for applying
for / granting of leave to various employees of AAI. These rules were
framed in exercise of the powers under sub-section (1) read with
ig
clause (b) of sub-section (2) & (4) of section 42 of the Airports Authority
4.
of India Act, 1994.
On 11th September, 2008 the DoPT issued an office
memorandum dated 11th September, 2008 consequent upon the
decision taken by the government on the recommendation of the sixth
pay commission relating to maternity leave and child care leave (CCL)
whereby the existing provisions of the Central Government of India
Services Rules, 1972 were enhanced. The relevant portion of the said
office memorandum reads as under:-
“ Consequent upon the decisions taken by the Government on
the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission
relating to Maternity Leave and Child Care Leave, the President
is pleased to decide that the existing provisions of the Central
Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 will be treated as modified as
4/26
::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2015 17:38:16 :::
wp2518-13.sxw
follows in respect of civilian employees of the Central
.....
(b) .....
(a)
Government:-
(c) Women employees having minor children may be granted
Child Care Leave by an authority competent to grant leave, for a
maximum period of two years (i.e. 730 days) during their entire
service for taking care of upto two children whether for rearing or
ig
to look after any of their needs like examination, sickness etc.
Child Care Leave shall not be admissible if the child is eighteen
years of age or older. During the period of such leave, the
women employees shall be paid leave salary equal to the pay
drawn immediately before proceeding on leave. It may be
availed of in more than one spell. Child Care Leave shall not be
debited against the leave account. Child Care Leave may also
be allowed for the third year as Leave not due (without
production of medical certificate). It may be combined with leave
5.
of the kind due and admissible.”
It will be useful to analyse the effect of this clause. It
applies to women employees having minor children, who may
be
granted leave by the competent authority for a maximum period of two
years during their entire service for taking care of not more than two
children. The leave could be for rearing the children or to look after
any of their needs. The said CCL was not available to a child of 18
5/26
::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2015 17:38:16 :::
wp2518-13.sxw
years or age or older. If women employees avail of such a leave, they
shall be paid leave salary equal to the pay drawn immediately before
to take effect from 1st September, 2008.
6.
proceeding on leave. Regulation 2 of the aforesaid memorandum was
Vide an office memorandum dated 3rd March, 2010, the
DoPT issued directions to all the Ministries and departments further
directing waiver of age restriction of 18 years mentioned in regulation
ig
(c) of the office memorandum of 11th September, 2008 in respect of
disabled / mentally challenged children. It was decided that CCL to
women with disabled children would be permissible upto the age of 22
years for a maximum period of 2 years. It was however clarified that
CCL cannot be demanded as a matter of right and under no
circumstances the employee could proceed on CCL without prior
approval or sanction of the authority. Moreover, the memorandum also
specifies that the provisions was applicable only if disabled child has a
minimum disability of 40%.
7. The petitioner has two children, one a 12 year old with
disability. It is the petitioner's case that the AAI has not implemented
the CCL provision for the benefit of its employees although it is bound
to. It is the petitioner's case that the non-implementation of the CCL by
6/26
::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2015 17:38:16 :::
wp2518-13.sxw
AAI amounts to violation of the right of the petitioner's second daughter,
who suffers from disability of ADHD, dysarthria and dysgraphia and
that CCL would be great assistance to the petitioner to help her second
child during the times of examination, fitness and medical check-up.
On 18th February, 2011 the petitioner applied for three days casual
leave on 21st, 22nd and 23rd February, 2011, prefixing 19th & 20th
February, 2011, being Saturday & Sunday with a request for permission
to leave station to go to her brother's house at Gandhinagar. Her leave
ig
application which is annexed at page 134 of the petition shows that due
to a meeting scheduled at New Delhi on 22nd February 2011 which
she was to attend, leave was not sanctioned. Sanction was declined
on the very day of her application and it is only on receipt of the
application that she was made aware of the meeting supposed to be
held on 22nd February, 2011 at New Delhi. In fact, the record reveals
that coincidentally a meeting was fixed on 18 th February, 2011 itself by
a communication by the AAI office addressed to the Regional
Executive Director.
8.
The petitioner then contacted the Private Secretary of Shri
Alok Sinha, Jt. Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation, whom she was
scheduled to meet in New Delhi to request for a change of date. She
was asked to send the request by fax for changing the date and
7/26
::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2015 17:38:16 :::
wp2518-13.sxw
thereafter proceed on leave. Apparently, the petitioner was assured
that the date would be changed. The petitioner thereafter did proceed
to Gandhinagar as per her original plan and the date of the meeting at
New Delhi was changed to 24th February, 2011 and thereafter
scheduled to 28th February, 2011 on some other person's request.
9.
The petitioner thereafter attended the meeting at New
Delhi on 28th February, 2011 and after the meeting, she met a few
ig
friends at AAI, who reportedly informed her that the AAI board had
cleared the file pertaining to implementation of the DoPT OM including
CCL with retrospective effect from 1 st September, 2008. Emboldened
by the said information, the petitioner, upon her return to Mumbai
applied for CCL for 61 days from 14 th March, 2011. It is the petitioner's
case that her application was within the provisions of the leave
regulations which require that the application for leave of three days or
more are to be submitted at least 7 days from the date from which the
leave was required.
It transpires that in fact AAI did not implement the entire DoPT OM but
only brought into effect paragraph (a) of the said Memorandum
whereby maternity leave was enhanced from 135 days to 186 days.
The information the petitioner received was hearsay. Paragraph (c)
8/26
::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2015 17:38:16 :::
wp2518-13.sxw
containing the provision for CCL was not adopted by the AAI. From
It is the petitioner's case that on 10th March, 2011 itself AAI
CCL.
this, it becomes evident that the petitioner was not entitled to apply
sought policy clarification of New Delhi office on the application of the
petitioner for CCL which has been received apparently with the
recommendation of respondent No.2 [The respondents however have
On 11th March, 2011 the petitioner claims she worked late
ig
10.
contended that no such recommendation was made].
and completed various assignments and kept the files ready in
anticipation of availing her leave, so that her absence would not
inconvenience the officer dealing with the files. It is the petitioner's case
that respondent No.2 did not inform her that her leave application was
not sanctioned and the petitioner proceeded on leave for Chennai
because she had not been informed that her leave was not granted.
According to the petitioner, respondent No.2 maliciously issued an
intra-office note dated 15th March, 2011, three days after the petitioner
had proceeded on leave, stating that she had proceeded on leave
without prior permission and had left station without permission of the
proper authority and without handing over the charge to anybody and
suggesting that necessary action be taken against her.
11.
According to the petitioner, she was not required to sign off
9/26
::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2015 17:38:16 :::
wp2518-13.sxw
any papers and hand over any charge as the petitioner was only a
section head and not head of the department and that in the tour order
issued by respondent No.2 himself had noted that the petitioner
proceeded on leave and nominated one Mr. Dinasan K.S., Manager to
look after her charge during her absence.
It transpires that on 30 th
May, 2011, the Deputy General Manager (HR), AAI informed the
concerned department that there was no provision for granting CCL in
AAI leave regulation, 2003 and that the proposal for granting of such a
ig
leave was under consideration of the appropriate forum. But in the
meantime, the leave of the petitioner is to be adjusted by granting her
earned leave or other leave admissible as per the rules.
On 11th July, 2011 the Mumbai office issued a letter to the
12.
petitioner that the disciplinary action would be taken since her leave
was not sanctioned but the letter did not mention that the payment due
to her be stopped pursuant to the intra office note dated 3 rd March,
2011. It appears that the letter dated 11 th May, 2011 was delivered at
her Chennai address on 3rd June, 2011. It was received by the
petitioner only because the petitioner's husband was in Chennai at the
material time. The petitioner claims that she was wholly unaware of this
development even after she joined duty on 16 th May, 2011 she was not
informed that the respondents had issued an intra-office note dated 3rd
10/26
::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2015 17:38:16 :::
wp2518-13.sxw
May, 2011 from HR section to the finance section stating that her salary
and other dues for the relevant period should not be paid. On 6 th June,
2011 her payment slip for May, 2011 the amount due as nil. She then
made an RTI application asking for the decision of the AAI as to non-
implementation of paragraphs (b) & (c) of the DoPT OM. On 17 th June,
2011 the petitioner received an office note regarding her leave that it be
adjusted by granting her earned leave or any other leave admissible as
per rules till a concrete decision is taken. There is no other order about
13.
ig
any disciplinary action to be taken against her.
Accordingly, the petitioner submitted a revised application
on 4th July, 2011 requesting for half pay leave instead of CCL. In doing
so, the petitioner acknowledged the fact that she could not insist on
CCL. On 8th July, 2011 she received a letter from DGM (HR) section
sanctioning her 61 days half pay leave.
On 19 th July, 2011, the
petitioner received a memorandum dated 15th July, 2011 from the
Regional Executive Director, Western Region, Mumbai, who had
issued intra office note dated 15th March, 2011 calling upon her to
submit written explanation for misconduct in having proceeded on
leave without sanction. On 21st July, 2011 the petitioner responded to
the accusations of the respondents setting out the details. It is inter
alia stated that the firstly intimation that her leave was not granted
11/26
::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2015 17:38:16 :::
wp2518-13.sxw
reached her only on 3rd June, 2011 i.e. 18 days after she joined duty on
16th May, 2011 and that it was respondent No.2's fault that he did not
return her leave application before she left on leave declining the
request. She also highlighted the fact that she had revised her leave
application as recommended by the concerned authority and she
sought withdrawal of the memo.
In her RTI application 30th June, 2011, the petitioner had
14.
ig
sought reasons why the provisions of CCL had not been incorporated
in the policy of AAI leave regulations. She received response to her
application that as per the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No.419
of 2007 the definition “information” cannot include within its fold
answers to the question as to “why“ a particular thing was done or not
done. In other words, the information sought could not be reasons as
to “why” a certain act was done or not done.
It is the petitioner's
contention that despite her reply dated 21st July, 2011 calling upon
respondent No.6 to withdraw the office memorandum it had not been
withdrawn.
The petitioner thereafter proceeded to pursue the non-
implementation of CCL by AAI with the AAI authorities.
15.
In July, 2012, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.1521 of
2012 relating to non-implementation of the CCL since her requests had
not elicited any response.
On 24 th June, 2013, this Court passed an
12/26
::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2015 17:38:16 :::
wp2518-13.sxw
order in the said Writ Petition directing respondent No.1, namely AAI to
take a decision by 31st August, 2013. On 30th August, 2013 the
respondents filed affidavit in reply stating that the demand of CCL was
not agreed to by AAI at a meeting of the Joint Consultative Machinery
and
representatives
of
Airports
Authority
Employees
Union.
Thereafter, the DGN (HR) vide its letter dated 28 th September, 2012
had also informed the concerned persons that the matter relating to
Although there was a specific direction by the order of this
16.
ig
CCL was examined and has not been acceded to.
Court dated 24th June, 2013 that respondent No.1 must take a decision
on this aspect by 31st August, 2013, we are constrained to observe that
they have filed an affidavit dated 30th August, 2013 and stating that the
decision on this aspect had already been taken in June, 2012.
The
order dated 24th June, 2013 is clear inasmuch as, the respondent No.1
was to consider the issue on adopting CCL by 31st August, 2013
obviously without reference to the purported petition of June, 2012.
Had it been otherwise, the respondents would have clearly relied upon
the decision taken in June, 2012 at the hearing Writ Petition No.1521
of 2012. On 23rd September, 2013 when the matter was listed, the
aforesaid petition was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition with
references to the additional information gathered by the Petitioner.
13/26
::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2015 17:38:16 :::
wp2518-13.sxw
Be that as it may, the petitioner contends that denial of
17.
CCL and deduction of the entire salary without prior intimation and
issuance of memorandum in July, 2011 are under challenge in the
present petition.
It is the petitioner's case that respondent No.1 being
a public sector undertaking, it is bound to implement all the special
provisions for women and children made by the Central Government as
declared in DoPT OM. That the respondents cannot pick and choose
ig
to implement only one paragraph of the DoPT OM. The petitioner had
proceeded on leave after having submitted her application 11 days
before. Respondent No.2 had failed to return the leave application with
any noting on it and that as per regulation 10(3) of AAI Leave
Regulation, 2003, if a leave application is refused or not processed
within seven days period as contemplated, it is deemed to be granted.
Regulations read as under:-
“10. Grant of and Return from leave-
(1)
Application for leave – Any application for leave or for
extension of leave and Joining Report shall be made in
prescribed form annexed to the Regulations to the
Competent Authority to grant leave.
(2)
Maintenance of leave account – A leave account shall be
maintained properly and up to date in the prescribed form
14/26
::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2015 17:38:16 :::
wp2518-13.sxw
annexed to the regulations for each employee of the
(3)
countersign every entry in the leave account.
Authority by the officer authorized in this behalf. He should
Employee should apply leave in advance – Except in
emergency, application for leave for 3 (three) days or more
on grounds other than on medical grounds shall be
submitted to the authority competent to grant leave in the
prescribed form annexed to the Regulations at least 7
(seven) days before the date from which the leave is
We are unable to agree that said leave applied for should
18.
ig
required.”
be deemed to have been granted. There is nothing in Regulation 10
which supports this contention of the petitioner. On behalf of the
respondents, an affidavit has been filed of Assistant Manager (HR),
wherein it is contended that the impugned intra office note is not
malicious and thus, the Central Civil Services Leave Rules, including
CCL cannot be applied to AAI and cannot be demanded as of right and
in no circumstances an employee can proceed on leave without the
approval of the leave sanctioning authority.
19.
It is contended that for the three days casual leave availed
of by the petitioner on from 21 st to 23rd February, 2011, the petitioner
had not obtained leave sanction from the competent authority and she
15/26
::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2015 17:38:16 :::
wp2518-13.sxw
got the meeting re-scheduled at New Delhi postponed and proceeded
on leave. That she ought not to have acted on the basis of hearsay
being taken by the AAI.
and applied for CCL and proceed on leave without the policy decision
That she absented herself without prior
approval and her application seeking CCL had been forwarded to H.R.
section for
consideration and that her application could not be
considered since no such provision is available in AAI. It is further
contended that respondent No.2 had never recommended the leave of
ig
the petitioner and that the remark on her application to that effect was a
20.
The
clerical mistake by the H.R. section.
petitioner
has
in
her
rejoinder
denied
these
contentions and highlighted the fact that respondents had no
explanation as to why respondent No.2 did not process the petitioner's
leave application dated 1st March, 2011 till 15th March, 2011 and why he
failed to send a copy of his intra office note dated 15 th March, 2011 to
the petitioner.
The petitioner has contended that respondents are
behaving in a high handed and over bearing manner and displaying
inconsiderate behaviour. The respondents have remained silent on the
right of disabled children. Respondent No.2 did not return her leave
application refusing to grant leave and no explanation was offered not
to return the application, till she proceeded on leave and thereafter,
16/26
::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2015 17:38:16 :::
wp2518-13.sxw
We have heard the parties at length. The petitioner has in
21.
issued an intra-office note.
the course of her submissions relied upon the AAI Act, 1994 as
amended by the amendment of 2003 and in particular section 40(1)
thereof, which is reproduced below:-
“40 (1) Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions of this Act,
ig
the Authority shall, in the discharge of its functions and duties
under this Act, be bound by such directions on questions of
to time.”
policy as the Central Government may give in writing it from time
The petitioner has also relied upon section 40(2) which
provides that the decision of the Central Government whether a
question is one of policy or not shall be final.
22.
It is the petitioner's case that DoPT OM being a matter of
policy, AAI shall be bound by such directions on questions of policy as
the Central Government may give in writing from time to time. She
contends that the issuance of the DoPT OM constitutes a direction from
the Central Government. The question, therefore, that falls for
consideration is, whether the Central Government has in fact issued
17/26
::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2015 17:38:16 :::
wp2518-13.sxw
any such directions to respondent No.1 to implement the provisions of
In this behalf, it is material to note that the intra office
the DoPT OM.
note dated 9/13th February, 2012 set out in paragraph 2 that AAI being
a public sector undertaking and it is governed by its own set of rules
and regulations and it is not mandatory to implement all the rules /
regulations prevailing in Central Government of India.
In our view the Central Government has not issued any
23.
ig
directives to AAI to implement or adopt the provisions of DoPT OM and
respondent No.1 is not obliged to do so unless the Central Government
has given instructions to adopt the same as contemplated under
section 40(1). The proviso to section 40(1) reads as under:-
“ Provided that the Authority shall, as far as practicable, be given
opportunity to express its view before any direction is given
under this sub-section.”
The proviso, therefore, makes it amply clear that the prior
to any direction to be given by the Central Government in respect of
the question of policy, respondent No.1 is to be given an opportunity to
express its views. These events have not taken place and the process
of implementation of DoPT OM can only be considered mandatory after
the Central Government issues such directions on the question of such
policy. Not having done so, the petitioner appears to have proceeded
18/26
::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2015 17:38:16 :::
wp2518-13.sxw
on the basis of a misconception that the provisions of DoPT OM were
24.
sanction leave or other Human Resource personnel.
applicable without having verified from the authority competent to
We are of the view that in having relied upon merely on
hearsay, attributed to friends and colleagues the petitioner met at CHQ,
AAI after the meeting with the Director, MOCA at Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan,
New Delhi on 28th February, 2011, the respondents cannot be faulted.
ig
In paragraph 10 of the petition, the petitioner states as follows:-
“10. She was informed by them that the AAI Board Members
had cleared the file regarding implementation of all the
paragraphs of DoPT No.13018/2/2008-Estt,(L) dt. 11 Sep. 2008,
including the new provision of Child Care Leave, with
retrospective effect from 1 Sep 2008.”
The petitioner had not obviously verified whether in fact the
DoPT OM had been adopted in its entirety before applying for leave on
the basis of information she received from friends.
25.
As it transpires from the record evidenced by a
communication dated 9th March, 2011, only paragraph (c) of the DoPT
OM pertaining to maternity leave was adopted by AAI. The other
paragraphs were not so adopted. This factual aspect of adoption of the
19/26
::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2015 17:38:16 :::
wp2518-13.sxw
provisions of DoPT OM to a limited extent ought to have been verified
by the petitioner before applying for leave on the presumption the
entire DoPT OM had been so adopted. It is not the petitioner's case
that she made inquiries with the competent authority and the
competent authority held out any such representation to her that the
entire DoPT OM has been adopted. She appears to have proceeded,
unfortunately, on the basis that the information she received from her
Adverting to the subsequent developments, namely, her
26.
friends was correct.
grievance relating to the fact that the leave sanctioning authority had
not sanctioned her leave, the petitioner’s contention that by virtue of
regulation 10(3) of the Leave Regulations, she had not received any
confirmation or refusal of leave pursuant to her application made and it
was presumed that the leave was sanctioned, does not find support in
the regulations.
The relevant portion of regulation 10 are reproduced
above. Our attention is not invited to any specific provision which can
lead an employee to believe that the leave applied for is deemed to be
granted if no communication is received either sanctioning or declining
the leave request. If indeed such a provision was in existence by way
of this regulation or office memorandum clarifications, it could have
been possible to hold in favour of the petitioner on this aspect.
However, once again, the petitioner proceeded on the misconceived
notion that leave is deemed to have been granted. The Petitioner’s
27.
contention is not well founded.
The fact that DoPT OM was partially adopted was made
known by the Corporate HRM Circular No.12/11 which is annexed to
the petition at page No.141.
It is issued on 9 th March, 2011. The
petitioner's leave application is dated 1st March, 2011 for leave of 61
days with effect from 14th March, 2011.
Had she pursued her
application for leave and sought specific approval she would have been
informed that the leave could not be sanctioned on the basis of
paragraph (c) of DoPT OM. The clarification was also issued by the
Executive Director (HR) in corporate circular No.12/11 only on 9 th
March, 2011 and therefore, till 9th March, 2011 there was no question of
her leave being sanctioned or refused since the sanctioning authority,
namely, respondent No.2 himself was unaware of the same.
28.
At best, assuming in favour of the petitioner, the circular
issued by respondent No.3 could not become available earlier than 9 th
March, 2011 a Wednesday. It left approximately only two days for
communication about the process of application after the applicability
of DoPT OM. Even assuming that respondent No.3 communicated the
same to respondent No.2 on 9th March, 2011 itself, 12th & 13th March,
2011 were Saturday and Sunday and from 14th March, 2011 the
In the reply, the
had not taken steps to consider her request.
petitioner was on leave. There is nothing to suggest that respondents
respondents have stated that under regulation 10(4) (b) no employee
should leave place of station without permission of the competent
authority. In the present case, such permission had not been granted
In the circumstances, the fact that the petitioner proceeded
29.
and the petitioner's application was awaiting consideration.
on leave without sanction cannot be disputed. However, as it transpires
even this will yet not justify the action taken by the respondents in
directing her pay to be stopped completely in view of the fact that even
after the impugned directive dated 5th July, 2011 issued by respondent
No.2, her leave application was considered by respondents and in a
communication dated 30th May, 2011 issued by the Deputy General
Manager (HR), ANS to respondent No.6, the Regional Executive
Director, AAI, Western Region, it was stated that until a concrete
decision is taken in the matter, it is advised to adjust the leave of the
petitioner by granting her earned leave or any other leave.
30.
In compliance therewith, the petitioner made a revised
application on 30th May, 2011 for leave as half pay leave. Accordingly,
she was granted half pay leave for a period of 61 days with
recommendations of GM (ATC), western region.
By a memorandum
dated 15th July, 2011 an explanation was sought from the petitioner for
proceeding on leave without prior sanction. It was replied on 21 st July,
2011 refuting the allegations and contending that she was being
harassed. It appears that after receiving her reply, no further action
has been taken.
On behalf of the Respondents, Mr. Khaire and Mr.Shetty
31.
submitted that being a senior level officer, she should have applied only
as per the existing AAI leave regulations and that action taken by the
competent authority against the petitioner for her willful absence
without sufficient ground is fair and justified. The fact remains that her
leave though not sanctioned was subsequently directed to be treated
as half pay leave.
32.
We find that half pay leave having been sanctioned, it is in
the fitness of things the petitioner could have been given the benefit of
doubt and the penalty imposed on the petitioner of stopping her pay
does not appear to be justified.
It is also not possible to fault the
issuance of the intra office note dated 15th March, 2011 and the
memorandum dated 15th July, 2011.
In view of the provisions of
Section 40 of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994, it is not possible
for this Court to issue any directions to respondents to implement
paragraph (b) & (c) of the DoPT OM. It is clear that the statute provides
for the Central Government to issue such policy decision and direction
to the respondents to implement.
33.
Bringing up children is a delicate task which are efficiently
and emotionally better handled by mothers. The Central Government in
its wisdom has thought it fit to offer several facilities of leave to working
mothers in cases as set out in the DoPT OM to alleviate the difficulties
faced by working mothers of children including those with children with
special needs. The emotional support that such children need at times
finds recognition in the said DoPT OM. It is true that the Respondent
no,1 has not adopted the provisions of the DoPT OM however, the
DoPT OM represents a women and child welfare provision that should
be given due importance and the Petitioner is at liberty to make a
representation to the Central Government in this behalf to issue
directions/suggestions for inclusion of paragraphs (b) & (c) in the
provisions of AAI (Leave) Rules, 2003 in accordance with the
provisions of Section 40 of the AAI Act.
34.
Half pay leave having been sanctioned, there does not
appear to be any justification for continuing with any inquiry against the
petitioner pursuant to the impugned intra office note dated 15 th March,
As regards the other reliefs, there is no warrant for
35.
2011 and memorandum dated 15th July, 2011.
direction for payment of any compensation.
As far as the plain
allegations of harassment are concerned, these cannot be gone into by
this Court in its writ jurisdiction.
warranted.
In the present set of facts no further interference is
The petitioner will no doubt have appropriate remedy to
36.
redress her grievance through the existing mechanism and without
seeking the assistance of the Court. In regard to the petitioner's prayer
for giving reasons for administrative and quasi-judicial decisions in
according with the RTI Act, reliance placed on the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court by the respondents in 1Dr. Celsa Pinto
V/s. Goa State Information Commissioner & Anr. holds the field and
it is not possible to direct disclosure of reasons “why” a particular policy
decision has been taken or not taken. The petitioner has contended
that Court was wrong in stating that justifications cannot be classified
as information while deciding Writ Petition No.419 of 2007. The said
order has attained finality and holds the field. The petitioner is
therefore, not entitled to reasons for the same. Needless to mention
that none of these observations will affect the petitioner's right
1 2008 (4) Mh. L.J. 822
In the result, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (b).
37.
representation to the Central Government as aforesaid.
We also consider it appropriate in the circumstances that the present
petition be treated as the petitioners representation to the Central
Government to consider issuing appropriate directions to the
Respondent no.1 to implement the provisions of the DoPT OM dated
11th September 2011, Exhibit “C” to the Petition. Since the Petitioner
appears in person, the Advocates for the Respondents shall forward a
true copy of the petition along with a copy of this judgment to the
appropriate persons in the concerned ministry so that the issue
receives the attention it deserves. A copy of such communication shall
be provided to the Petitioner. No order as to costs.
(V.M. KANADE, J.)
(A.K. MENON, J.)
No comments:
Post a Comment